Quick Links

Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA

The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.

Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

You'd find an increase in sales price actually. Gamestop would need to meet their profit margins somehow, and that would be on the backs of consumers willing to dish out 75, 95, 155 USD for new games(or any games for that matter in this future world of no used games that bring nearly perfect profits).

Absent a used game market, developers would presumably be able to drop their wholesale prices and still realize a net profit, which would partially offset the loss of revenue for Gamestop, et al.

Gamestop wouldn't be able to raise their prices, though, since other retailers - Target, Amazon, etc - would have no reason to raise theirs. In fact, if developers lower their wholesale costs, other retailers might drop their retail prices, and Gamestop just flat-out ceases to exist.

Either way, if used games stop being a thing, Gamestop B&M stores are pretty much dead. They have nothing else to offer beyond the inherent cool-factor of being in a store devoted wholly to games, and that won't go far.

Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

Absent a used game market, developers would presumably be able to drop their wholesale prices and still realize a net profit, which would partially offset the loss of revenue for Gamestop, et al.

Gamestop wouldn't be able to raise their prices, though, since other retailers - Target, Amazon, etc - would have no reason to raise theirs. In fact, if developers lower their wholesale costs, other retailers might drop their retail prices, and Gamestop just flat-out ceases to exist.

Either way, if used games stop being a thing, Gamestop B&M stores are pretty much dead. They have nothing else to offer beyond the inherent cool-factor of being in a store devoted wholly to games, and that won't go far.

Yes yes, so you're more than likely correct. However, i don't foresee anyone lowering their prices, ever. Why would they? Consumers have proven their willingness to pay at this price point already, might as well keep it there and see if they keep paying it. I suspect we will.

I don't see what is stopping a publisher from simply taking the current lockouts that use codes to prevent used game buyers from accessing content and applying it to almost the entire game. The only thing is that not every console is online, but with online being more and more expected as time goes on, publishers could decide that killing used games for specific software is worth not getting the business of the few people who don't have their consoles hooked up to the internet.

Absent a used game market, developers would presumably be able to drop their wholesale prices and still realize a net profit, which would partially offset the loss of revenue for Gamestop, et al.

Gamestop wouldn't be able to raise their prices, though, since other retailers - Target, Amazon, etc - would have no reason to raise theirs. In fact, if developers lower their wholesale costs, other retailers might drop their retail prices, and Gamestop just flat-out ceases to exist.

Either way, if used games stop being a thing, Gamestop B&M stores are pretty much dead. They have nothing else to offer beyond the inherent cool-factor of being in a store devoted wholly to games, and that won't go far.

Yes yes, so you're more than likely correct. However, i don't foresee anyone lowering their prices, ever. Why would they? Consumers have proven their willingness to pay at this price point already, might as well keep it there and see if they keep paying it. I suspect we will.

Well, if everyone else in town was selling games for 60 bucks, and I could make a profit selling mine for 40-45 AND steal their business....

One: Console makers don't want to anger Gamestop by removing used games. Unless all console makers made used games a thing of the past, whichever one did would be in trouble with a major distributor.

Two: Console makers don't want to lose a sizable chunk of their consumers by making every console have to be online.

Three: Publishers would love to get rid of used games altogether. The idea that a week after release, Gamestop is making upwards of $30 profit off of their games without them seeing a penny is awful to publishers. Especially after seeing how Steam actually works.

How do you address all three issues?

You can't just tie everything to someone's account, because that would punish users who don't take their system online.

So the answer would have to be something hardware related. Something that's a one time use that would tie it to the console the first time a disc is inserted. Maybe a NFC chip on the disc, or something similar. If the console is online, it'd tie it to the account. Or if the console isn't online, once online the game could be tied to the account. The original purchaser could be given access to a download copy of the game as well, basically allowing them to sell the disc if....

But what do you do from there? You don't want to piss off Gamestop, but limiting used games (or adding a revenue stream for publishers from used games) would really rally publishers around you.

The only answer I can see is allowing the used game to be sold, however require a new key in order for the game to be functional on a different console/account. Either done through the console's storefront, or done directly at the point of purchase through Gamestop. It'd be similar to the $10 initiative EA has been doing, however lock out the whole game.

TLDR:

Stopping used games has to be a hardware killswitch on the disc. In order to not piss off gamestop, after the killswitch is activated, the game could be resold, however a new key would have to be purchased. This would possibly please everyone, however it would be complicated and possibly be way too much work to be viable.

Has anyone pointed out that used game sales being eliminated basically puts an expiration date on gamestop and all but hastens a steam-style all digital distribution service for each console becoming a guaranteed success?

Absent a used game market, developers would presumably be able to drop their wholesale prices and still realize a net profit, which would partially offset the loss of revenue for Gamestop, et al.

Gamestop wouldn't be able to raise their prices, though, since other retailers - Target, Amazon, etc - would have no reason to raise theirs. In fact, if developers lower their wholesale costs, other retailers might drop their retail prices, and Gamestop just flat-out ceases to exist.

Either way, if used games stop being a thing, Gamestop B&M stores are pretty much dead. They have nothing else to offer beyond the inherent cool-factor of being in a store devoted wholly to games, and that won't go far.

Yes yes, so you're more than likely correct. However, i don't foresee anyone lowering their prices, ever. Why would they? Consumers have proven their willingness to pay at this price point already, might as well keep it there and see if they keep paying it. I suspect we will.

Once upon a time, games came on cartridge and cost over $100 in today-dollars. This held true through the 16-bit era. Towards the end, some games came out at closer to $150 in TodayBucks (Phantasy Star 4, VirtuaRacer, I think a few more). Game prices actually dropped when the PSX came out, from $60 (in then-bucks) to $50 or less (in then-bucks), except for N64 games, which were still on cart and thus cost more. Prices held mostly through the next generation (PS2/Xbox/GCN), then were hiked back up to $60 (in then-bucks), where they've mostly held through today. (Nintendo was once again an exception with the Wii, charging generally only $50 for Wii games.)

I'm assuming that game prices won't go up this time, which in effect means that they're cheaper than at the dawn of the PS360 era to the tune of $10 or so.

tl;dr: Game prices have actually dropped in the past, notably at the end of the cartridge era. Overall, they drop in inflation-adjusted dollars pretty much constantly, and will probably continue to.

Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

The prices did drop... I still remember paying $80 for FF4 & 6. However, while die hards will still pay that price, the average consumer is much more price averse. $60 is not a magic price point, and if industry sales are anything to go by, consumers are becoming less and less willing to put $60 on a new game unless its one of the big COD/Madden/AC type titles.

Now, I don't know if that's a recession issue, caused by this longer than usual console life cycle, or just that the "casual" consumer is just willing to spend less (bored with gaming maybe?), but it's an issue, and publishers thinking that blocking used games will magically make the $60 price point more appealing have a rude awakening in store.

The prices did drop... I still remember paying $80 for FF4 & 6. However, while die hards will still pay that price, the average consumer is much more price averse. $60 is not a magic price point, and if industry sales are anything to go by, consumers are becoming less and less willing to put $60 on a new game unless its one of the big COD/Madden/AC type titles.

Now, I don't know if that's a recession issue, caused by this longer than usual console life cycle, or just that the "casual" consumer is just willing to spend less (bored with gaming maybe?), but it's an issue, and publishers thinking that blocking used games will magically make the $60 price point more appealing have a rude awakening in store.

Part of me wonders if this is a side effect of the homogenization of the industry. If game companies put out 80 mud-brown shooters with near identical gameplay a year, why would anyone buy anything but the top franchises? There are way too many midlist games that are nothing but mediocre attempts at formulas done better by the AAAs.

I'd think that without a used games market, hardware sales will fall off much more rapidly once the enthusiast's market has had its fill. Videogames can be quite the money sink, if you have to buy games at full price all the time.

I'd be personally disappointed if the used game market was wiped out. I'm currently going through a bunch of the marquee PS3 games at budget pricing. I don't feel that paying full price for games is worth it on a value basis.

What would be the legal aspect of this? You would be buying a license to the game?

The prices did drop... I still remember paying $80 for FF4 & 6. However, while die hards will still pay that price, the average consumer is much more price averse. $60 is not a magic price point, and if industry sales are anything to go by, consumers are becoming less and less willing to put $60 on a new game unless its one of the big COD/Madden/AC type titles.

Now, I don't know if that's a recession issue, caused by this longer than usual console life cycle, or just that the "casual" consumer is just willing to spend less (bored with gaming maybe?), but it's an issue, and publishers thinking that blocking used games will magically make the $60 price point more appealing have a rude awakening in store.

Part of me wonders if this is a side effect of the homogenization of the industry. If game companies put out 80 mud-brown shooters with near identical gameplay a year, why would anyone buy anything but the top franchises? There are way too many midlist games that are nothing but mediocre attempts at formulas done better by the AAAs.

This is a good point, and I'm curious how well side-scrolling platformers (sort of the mud-brown FPS of the 90s) did. Like, Mario and Sonic did well, and you had the odd Bonk or Bubsy that did okay, but I can't imagine your generic Awesome Possum (Kicks Dr Magneto's Butt!)* did all that great.

*Yes, this was a real game. Yes, I played it. Yes, it was bad.

Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

I'd think that without a used games market, hardware sales will fall off much more rapidly once the enthusiast's market has had its fill. Videogames can be quite the money sink, if you have to buy games at full price all the time.

Or people will fly F2P MMOs and buy cheap indie games from Steam, and Consoles will lose their price advantage.

One: Console makers don't want to anger Gamestop by removing used games. Unless all console makers made used games a thing of the past, whichever one did would be in trouble with a major distributor.

Two: Console makers don't want to lose a sizable chunk of their consumers by making every console have to be online.

Three: Publishers would love to get rid of used games altogether. The idea that a week after release, Gamestop is making upwards of $30 profit off of their games without them seeing a penny is awful to publishers. Especially after seeing how Steam actually works.

How do you address all three issues?

You can't just tie everything to someone's account, because that would punish users who don't take their system online.

So the answer would have to be something hardware related. Something that's a one time use that would tie it to the console the first time a disc is inserted. Maybe a NFC chip on the disc, or something similar. If the console is online, it'd tie it to the account. Or if the console isn't online, once online the game could be tied to the account. The original purchaser could be given access to a download copy of the game as well, basically allowing them to sell the disc if....

But what do you do from there? You don't want to piss off Gamestop, but limiting used games (or adding a revenue stream for publishers from used games) would really rally publishers around you.

The only answer I can see is allowing the used game to be sold, however require a new key in order for the game to be functional on a different console/account. Either done through the console's storefront, or done directly at the point of purchase through Gamestop. It'd be similar to the $10 initiative EA has been doing, however lock out the whole game.

TLDR:

Stopping used games has to be a hardware killswitch on the disc. In order to not piss off gamestop, after the killswitch is activated, the game could be resold, however a new key would have to be purchased. This would possibly please everyone, however it would be complicated and possibly be way too much work to be viable.

This is already basically how it operates though! For example, if I go and pick up a used copy of Mass Effect 3, in order to play it online in any way, I have to spend an extra $10 and get a new "online key" for my account.

I can very easily see this becoming completely standard for every game sold.

Give limited features to used games until people purchase some sort of "key" to unlock the whole game.

My point is, I disagree that it is complicated and too much work. In fact, going on the record as saying that IF next-gen consoles "lock out" used games, then this will be the result.

I'd think that without a used games market, hardware sales will fall off much more rapidly once the enthusiast's market has had its fill. Videogames can be quite the money sink, if you have to buy games at full price all the time.

It's why any mouth-shooting of the used game market needs to come with a price drop.

I don't think the publishers are smart enough to do that though (apparently they still aren't learning from Steam) but this is balanced by them not being ballsy enough to kill the used market yet anyway.

One: Console makers don't want to anger Gamestop by removing used games. Unless all console makers made used games a thing of the past, whichever one did would be in trouble with a major distributor.

Two: Console makers don't want to lose a sizable chunk of their consumers by making every console have to be online.

Three: Publishers would love to get rid of used games altogether. The idea that a week after release, Gamestop is making upwards of $30 profit off of their games without them seeing a penny is awful to publishers. Especially after seeing how Steam actually works.

How do you address all three issues?

You can't just tie everything to someone's account, because that would punish users who don't take their system online.

So the answer would have to be something hardware related. Something that's a one time use that would tie it to the console the first time a disc is inserted. Maybe a NFC chip on the disc, or something similar. If the console is online, it'd tie it to the account. Or if the console isn't online, once online the game could be tied to the account. The original purchaser could be given access to a download copy of the game as well, basically allowing them to sell the disc if....

But what do you do from there? You don't want to piss off Gamestop, but limiting used games (or adding a revenue stream for publishers from used games) would really rally publishers around you.

The only answer I can see is allowing the used game to be sold, however require a new key in order for the game to be functional on a different console/account. Either done through the console's storefront, or done directly at the point of purchase through Gamestop. It'd be similar to the $10 initiative EA has been doing, however lock out the whole game.

TLDR:

Stopping used games has to be a hardware killswitch on the disc. In order to not piss off gamestop, after the killswitch is activated, the game could be resold, however a new key would have to be purchased. This would possibly please everyone, however it would be complicated and possibly be way too much work to be viable.

This is already basically how it operates though! For example, if I go and pick up a used copy of Mass Effect 3, in order to play it online in any way, I have to spend an extra $10 and get a new "online key" for my account.

I can very easily see this becoming completely standard for every game sold.

Give limited features to used games until people purchase some sort of "key" to unlock the whole game.

My point is, I disagree that it is complicated and too much work. In fact, going on the record as saying that IF next-gen consoles "lock out" used games, then this will be the result.

The too much work part comes from still allowing consoles to exist as an offline entity. If that wasn't necessary this gen, I'd say just go the Steam route outright. Hell, allow EA/Ubisoft/whomever to have their own storefront on your console, buy the games through Origin/Uplay. However, since this gen still requires physical copies that work on offline consoles, it requires a lot of workaround.

First is the games industry (as a whole) looking for a better return on investment. Those triple-A shooters and other titles may be selling millions of copies but at the cost of an ever escalating budget to get out the door. When it costs twenty to thirty to forty million dollars to get the next Bioshock or Mass Effect published, then it should be of no wonder that used sales are the first thing that is being looked at to try to curtail. That first week, much like the movie industry, is very important to the beancounters. This is not an industry that is looking at their return over a year or more worth of time. They want it quarterly or less. Which runs very counter to how the retail world moves. Word of mouth is important. Generating buzz is important. The long simmer and surprise hit both confound and drive the marketing departments crazy. Trying to control that is wasted effort both in terms of dollars spent and in customer goodwill.

The second item to address is that even having a hardware solution is not enough to guarantee the death of used games. As any good computer security guru will tell you, if you put the hardware in your attacker's hands then you have lost the ability to control the situation. You need only look at the fact that no scheme (DVD/Bluray/HDMI/etc) has withstood the sort of brute strength attack that is possible once your release the hardware. And giving it a secondary confirmation vector (e.g. online pass) only works so well. See what happened with Microsoft's attempt at online activation for the last couple of iterations of WinOS. This leaves the console makers...reluctant to sink R&D into something which will be broken and likely to piss off part of their customer base when the false positives (which will happen as it already has with this generation) start to cut off legit customers.

Finally there is actual competition breathing down the big three's necks. Not just from Android and iOS but from the Steambox and OUYA. Two of those are based on open-source software that anyone can easily code for. One is already a big enough pain the publishers' ass that EA & Activision just joined forces to attempt to compete against (and by all accounts are flailing). And I don't think anyone here underestimates the clout that Apple can wield when it comes to their cordoned off playground.

In total, it's not looking good for the sort of high-cost, high-risk games being made for much longer. The ROI isn't there. I don't think that EA, Ubisoft, or Activision are going away, but they're going to have to refocus their efforts on what makes money. Likely that means shades-of-brown shooters until something else takes that popularity away. That means multiplatform releases that include phones and tablets. It's going to be a crazy next five years in games.

Would this also prevent you from taking your game over to a buddy's house to play? I guess so right, since that game isn't brand new when you pop it in?

I think you should be able to log in to your online account on your friend's system and then have access to your library of games. At least that seems reasonable to me.

The bigger issue is the Steam issue - many games on one account, but you can only play 1 at a time?

I want that addressed specifically because it limits actual rights I'm supposed to have by the game EULAs.

this. this. a thousand times this.

For indie games or others that seem likely, I always will wait a while for a game to come out on GoG rather than getting it on Steam.

People get so caught up in the fact that Steam has less bullshit than other DRMed services (like Origin or that one from the wanker at Stardock) that they forget it still has a lot of needless bullshit.

Being just barely less-evil enough to be acceptable does not make them Good.

I think the resale value of a game is part of its value to me, and this would reduce that value while giving me nothing in return.

Steam also removes resale, so reduces the value of the game, but gives me a bonus in return - you all know the benefits of using Steam rather than physical media. So I use Steam, but more carefully than consoles.

It saddens me that some media people, e.g. G&T, think secondhand sales are somehow wrong. And I wonder, is there legal protection for the right to resell a physical product?

This will probably hasten the demise of the console market. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who has owned a console at one point and then hit the point where I ask myself "That exclusive game for [insert console] looks nice, but frankly there are plenty of nice games I can play on my PC. I can also upgrade my PC and find ways to ensure I can continue replaying games I like without having to worry about someone forgetting to make sure awesome game X is backwards compatible with the next console."

We'll assume they console markers won't completely boneheaded and make it so that you have no way of accessing your legitimately purchased games on your friends console or even a new one. You just won't be able purchase any games released in this console generation as used. So if you aren't hardcore, made of money and/or price adverse, you're going to get stuck trying to find a cheaper avenue to try out or even play some of these games that you aren't willing to shell out lots of money for yet or ever. I'd also say, once you force more consumers to look into playing more stuff on a PC, they're going to start wondering if shelling out the money for both the console and a few exclusives, will even be worth it anymore.

I haven't bought a used game in a while, partly because of those codes packed in to new copies to unlock multiplayer / new guns or whatever, but partly because Game in the UK is constantly dropping prices from £60 to £20-30 on relatively new releases. I got Far Cry 3 for something like £24 over Christmas.

I think Game have seen the writing on the wall and are experimenting with price dropping on certain games. They've already got my interest because of my Reward Card, they just need to keep it by competing with Playstation Plus, my current front runner in game acquisition.

I think the most likely thing that will happen is just having to pay 10 bucks to unlock the game for your account on the respective system. You can still buy used games, you can still play them at a friends house on a different system, you just have to give the developer a cut.

So, if Sony let's developers enforce a pay to activate system, and MS does not, and the systems are otherwise comparable, why would anyone buy a PS4 or a PS4 version of a games? It would have markedly less value than the MS equivalent. I don't know, it just seems like kinda an odd move. Of course, for the Xbox you'll need to be paying for live(so it is probably a wash), and Sony has always been annoyingly protective of their IP.

I think codes are the way to go, and its just a question of what features will be locked out, and what they will cost. Wen you lock out multi you create an interesting dynamic, as someone who does not care about multi can actually get a better than intended deal on a used game. I wouldn't be surprised to see used games become nothing more than glorified demos which require an expensive ($25+) code to unlock the bulk of the single and multiplayer content. If they really wanted to kill GameStop, they could make the code cost $55.

So, if Sony let's developers enforce a pay to activate system, and MS does not, and the systems are otherwise comparable, why would anyone buy a PS4 or a PS4 version of a games? It would have markedly less value than the MS equivalent. I don't know, it just seems like kinda an odd move. Of course, for the Xbox you'll need to be paying for live(so it is probably a wash), and Sony has always been annoyingly protective of their IP.

People would be buying one for the same reason they buy a PS3 over a 360. Platform exclusive titles, and occasionally brand loyalty. Increasing the average price of games might have some effect, but only on price conscious consumers, and I suspect Microsoft and Sony are both betting they have plenty of customers who aren't.

On the developer side, if a console is the only one to offer protection from the used games market, then I would expect you're much more likely to develop exclusively for that platform. It's the one where you are guaranteed a portion of the revenue from every person who plays your game instead of just the ones that buy it new. I'm not suggesting that it is actually in their best interest, just that it appears to be so with sufficient strength that it's hard to sell shareholders (of publishers) on other courses of action.

In February 2011, Bulletstorm, Civ 5, Dead Space 2, Kirby's Epic Yarn were on shelves - these games were sold for the standard $60. 2 years later and now they're all $20 or less new. Doesn't matter if they're Greatest Hits or Platinum million sellers or flops; if a game was released two years ago, it's probably $20 today. But why? These aren't Madden games with obsolete rosters - aside from multiplayer lobbies that look like ghost towns, they're all still playable and enjoyable. I don't remember this happening during the N64/PSX days.

Do lower used game prices cause all games to lose value quicker? A race to the bottom?

In February 2011, Bulletstorm, Civ 5, Dead Space 2, Kirby's Epic Yarn were on shelves - these games were sold for the standard $60. 2 years later and now they're all $20 or less new. Doesn't matter if they're Greatest Hits or Platinum million sellers or flops; if a game was released two years ago, it's probably $20 today. But why? These aren't Madden games with obsolete rosters - aside from multiplayer lobbies that look like ghost towns, they're all still playable and enjoyable. I don't remember this happening during the N64/PSX days.

Do lower used game prices cause all games to lose value quicker? A race to the bottom?

I think this is a supply/demand effect. The games were over-produced for the available consumer base at a certain price point, so the retailers begin lowering the price but not ordering more of the products until they catch new consumers at each price point, hoping that someone still wants the game at $5, five years later.

So, if Sony let's developers enforce a pay to activate system, and MS does not, and the systems are otherwise comparable, why would anyone buy a PS4 or a PS4 version of a games? It would have markedly less value than the MS equivalent. I don't know, it just seems like kinda an odd move. Of course, for the Xbox you'll need to be paying for live(so it is probably a wash), and Sony has always been annoyingly protective of their IP.

People would be buying one for the same reason they buy a PS3 over a 360. Platform exclusive titles, and occasionally brand loyalty. Increasing the average price of games might have some effect, but only on price conscious consumers, and I suspect Microsoft and Sony are both betting they have plenty of customers who aren't.

On the developer side, if a console is the only one to offer protection from the used games market, then I would expect you're much more likely to develop exclusively for that platform. It's the one where you are guaranteed a portion of the revenue from every person who plays your game instead of just the ones that buy it new. I'm not suggesting that it is actually in their best interest, just that it appears to be so with sufficient strength that it's hard to sell shareholders (of publishers) on other courses of action.

If one console blocks used games and the other doesn't, then people are going to flock to the console that doesn't. And at that point, a developer's best interest is to go where the consumers are. Not to mention there really isn't that much brand loyalty these days, especially with systems and games becoming more and more similar. When it comes time to buy the new Call of Duty game, people are going to buy it on the system that their friends are playing on.

"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
PSN: TheWolfman64 3DS/Pokemon Y: 0774-4614-4065/NNID: the_wolfman64